Time for licenced Engineers?

Firstly, a like didn't seem anything like enough for Roy B's post - I always expect a good and interesting view from Roy, but I think this one exceeds even his norm for useful and interesting information!


Secondly, Alasdair, i think I maybe didn't make myself clear enough. I was not saying that an Engineering Tech can't undertake sign-off if their competence covers it, but that it is unreasonable for an organisation to place the responsibility for sign off on an Engineering Tech (i.e. to make it a requirement for them to do so) - my point being that organizations can and do place the responsibility for sign off on I.Eng or C.Eng (or an equivalent in their own general competence assessments, given my point was that one or the other is required, registration being only one way to satisfy that) and that is reasonable and to be expected if you are operating at that level, but it would be unreasonable for them to place that responsibility on an eng tech.  Let's not forget the maxim "you can delegate authority, but you can't delegate responsibility". 


It may well be that the person who has reasonably been required to take responsibility for sign off delegates the task of assessing suitability for sign off of an engineering solution to an engineering tech (or indeed any other suitably competent person), but it would be unreasonable to expect them to be accountable for that sign off, hence they still have to satisfy themselves that the assessment is suitable and sufficient and provide the sign off so that the accountability sits at their level, not the Eng Tech.


Indeed, this is an excellent development opportunity and could be used as evidence to submit in an application to upgrade registration level.


As a little side-track anecdote as an analogy, when i made the ridiculously (for me) bad career choice on first leaving school of entering accountancy, within a year as Articled Clerk, I reached the point where I and my fellow Articled Clerks did all of the work of preparing accounts and producing audit reports, which then went through to the Partners (Chartered Accountants) for sign off, and the meeting to present accounts to the client. From our perception it seemed grossly unfair that we clerks on a Bob Cratchett level pittance (really, this was the '70''s - £8pw which was way below what we would now call the minimum wage) did all the work whilst these Partners sat in their plush offices, drove their luxury cars, and were wined and dined by clients after only signing on the dotted line of the work done by us. But I now wonder how we would have reacted if somebody had offered us the opportunity to do the sign off but then explained the accountability implications of doing so! Yes, undoubtedly there were elements of Chartership being a badge, a status symbol and a one-off 'prize' with no subsequent requirement to satisfy anybody as to ongoing competence or CPD, but as I say, this was the '70's. 


Which leads me to answer another point raised - if there is any value to be gained by pursuing a licensing scheme it most definitely should be focused on attaining suitable and sufficient engineering standard of practice, not to support status or remuneration aspirations. Yes, it's right to renumerate appropriately, but that should arise from worth, not from the award of a licence.

Firstly, a like didn't seem anything like enough for Roy B's post - I always expect a good and interesting view from Roy, but I think this one exceeds even his norm for useful and interesting information!


Secondly, Alasdair, i think I maybe didn't make myself clear enough. I was not saying that an Engineering Tech can't undertake sign-off if their competence covers it, but that it is unreasonable for an organisation to place the responsibility for sign off on an Engineering Tech (i.e. to make it a requirement for them to do so) - my point being that organizations can and do place the responsibility for sign off on I.Eng or C.Eng (or an equivalent in their own general competence assessments, given my point was that one or the other is required, registration being only one way to satisfy that) and that is reasonable and to be expected if you are operating at that level, but it would be unreasonable for them to place that responsibility on an eng tech.  Let's not forget the maxim "you can delegate authority, but you can't delegate responsibility". 


It may well be that the person who has reasonably been required to take responsibility for sign off delegates the task of assessing suitability for sign off of an engineering solution to an engineering tech (or indeed any other suitably competent person), but it would be unreasonable to expect them to be accountable for that sign off, hence they still have to satisfy themselves that the assessment is suitable and sufficient and provide the sign off so that the accountability sits at their level, not the Eng Tech.


Indeed, this is an excellent development opportunity and could be used as evidence to submit in an application to upgrade registration level.


As a little side-track anecdote as an analogy, when i made the ridiculously (for me) bad career choice on first leaving school of entering accountancy, within a year as Articled Clerk, I reached the point where I and my fellow Articled Clerks did all of the work of preparing accounts and producing audit reports, which then went through to the Partners (Chartered Accountants) for sign off, and the meeting to present accounts to the client. From our perception it seemed grossly unfair that we clerks on a Bob Cratchett level pittance (really, this was the '70''s - £8pw which was way below what we would now call the minimum wage) did all the work whilst these Partners sat in their plush offices, drove their luxury cars, and were wined and dined by clients after only signing on the dotted line of the work done by us. But I now wonder how we would have reacted if somebody had offered us the opportunity to do the sign off but then explained the accountability implications of doing so! Yes, undoubtedly there were elements of Chartership being a badge, a status symbol and a one-off 'prize' with no subsequent requirement to satisfy anybody as to ongoing competence or CPD, but as I say, this was the '70's. 


Which leads me to answer another point raised - if there is any value to be gained by pursuing a licensing scheme it most definitely should be focused on attaining suitable and sufficient engineering standard of practice, not to support status or remuneration aspirations. Yes, it's right to renumerate appropriately, but that should arise from worth, not from the award of a licence.